Randy Lahey Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Has the GNR name been too much for Axl to carry on his own? It seemed like a good idea in the 90's: buy the name, collect 14 million dollars, hire a band and make a new album, but unfortunately things haven't worked out. Do you guys think it is mainly the record company blocking future releases or is it Axl not feeling like the music is up to old GNR standards yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JVesper Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Why does it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GET OFF AXLS BACK Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 The expectations connected to the name have yes. Was it a good idea?I honestly don't think so, I get why his mindset thought he was protecting it but in some ways it has been damaged, if it had just faded away then it might have been better.I'm not a hater, but the name used to mean something incredible, does it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Satanisk_Slakt Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Yeah, it couldn't be more obvious. The GNR name is too much for Axl to live up to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Has the GNR name been too much for Axl to carry on his own?What do you mean? He is obviously carrying it, so no. It seemed like a good idea in the 90's: buy the name, collect 14 million dollars, hire a band and make a new album, but unfortunately things haven't worked out.What do you mean "it hasn't worked out"? Axl's plans of releasing three records by 2012 hasn't worked out, that is true, but that doesn't mean that his plan of keeping the name hasn't worked out. You are aware GN'R released a record in 2008 and that the band has been touring successfully since then?Do you guys think it is mainly the record company blocking future releases or is it Axl not feeling like the music is up to old GNR standards yet?I think it takes time because Axl's a hopeless perfectionist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted May 21, 2012 Author Share Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) I'd rather have multiple Axl Rose solo albums than have him wasting his remaining years in the biz chasing the ghost of his former band. I know I'm probably in the minority, but I'm only interested in Axl at this point. The allure of more Axl Rose music is the only thing that keeps me posting in the GNR section of this board anymore. Edited May 21, 2012 by Randy Lahey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) I'd rather have multiple Axl Rose solo albums than have him wasting his remaining years in the biz chasing the ghost of his former band.So what you are saying is that if Axl wasn't fronting Guns N' Rose,s but rather was free to release music as a solo artist, he would be more productive? Why do you think this? Don't you think he would be just as much a perfectionist if he wrote all the music himself, perhaps even played more instruments himself, and released them as a solo artist?And why do you say he is "wasting his years" when he released a record a mere 4 years back and is touring successfully around the world? If he was sitting in his house twiddling his thumbs doing nothing, then yes, that would be wasting his years in regard to being a productive artist, but that is clearly not what is happening here. Edited May 21, 2012 by SoulMonster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GET OFF AXLS BACK Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 I wonder if he would be more productive without the name, less of a burden attached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted May 21, 2012 Author Share Posted May 21, 2012 I wonder if he would be more productive without the name, less of a burden attached.One released album in twenty years with the name wouldn't be tough to beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screamin' Demon Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) Definitely. It's made him put too much time and emphasis on what should have been a one time solo project. He was never supposed to be a good solo musician, nor are any other singers of high profile acts. Had he done the sensible thing and acknowledged the breakup of Guns N' Roses instead of spitefully continuing to use the name and denying the breakup, he could have made a mediocre solo album, just to express his own interpretation on music and then gone back to Guns N' Roses where he really belongs. The guy has shamed his career by a thoughtless act of spite, to use a high profile act name in order to further his own personal musical project, and in return maybe it's just come back to bite him. Perhaps he's waking up to the fact that being spiteful has thrown away so much of his time and talent for a cause not worth all this. Having dealt first hand with someone else with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I don't think that his ego will ever allow him to change his ways. Just about the only thing that would force him to get up and do something would be if all the fans decided to stop buying his music and attending his concerts but that's not gonna happen boys and girls. Edited May 21, 2012 by Screamin Demon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JVesper Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Well ain't that a great little analysis?How about you go care about something more important than the name of a band? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RonMexico82 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Screamin Demon gets it. Nail on Head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trqster Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Axl still carries the Gn'R name for one damn good reason: $'s!! There might be others but this one must be the strongest one.Didn't he in his chats mentioned something like that if he didn't stand to the name he'd be probably broke, cause of all the lawsuits going on?It must be expensive to support his lifestyle, entourage/"family", lawyers, hired musicians, etc, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Axl still carries the Gn'R name for one damn good reason: $'s!! There might be others but this one must be the strongest one.Didn't he in his chats mentioned something like that if he didn't stand to the name he'd be probably broke, cause of all the lawsuits going on?It must be expensive to support his lifestyle, entourage/"family", lawyers, hired musicians, etc, etc... I doubt it. He doesn't seem to be motivated by money at all, just some vague artistic vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbo Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 I've never, and will never agree with Axl carrying on with the name. With that name came a huge burden, and huge shoes to fill, as even back in the heyday, the public was aware that Axl wasn't solely responsible for the success that came with the name, it was a group effort, so it hard to swallow him carrying on as the sole member. Regardless of who's fault it was, blah, blah, blah, it was always essentially a different musical outfit, and it always came off as a cheap stunt to most calling it something that it wasn't anymore. Really he should have just called it what it was; a solo venture. I personally think he would've been better off. Then again, maybe he didn't foresee it being this difficult at the time. Wasn't it Alan Niven that said towards the beginning that (from his perspective) CD was a solo project, but Axl was using the name to get advanced funding for the record?And really, what did he gain? A few profits from touring, sure, but totally lost respect from the general public, and it's gotta sting that after 15 years of efforts, the general public still wants the real deal over what's considered "gnr" today.The nu band never won preference in the grand scheme of things. Basically a nostalgic trip of Axl singing the songs the public loves. Oh and an album that went over the general public's head and divided the hard cores in half. He could have, and should have (in my opinion) done this without dragging a name with a legendary history like that through the mud like he did. But what's done is done, I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Really he should have just called it what it was; a solo venture.If you look at the credit notes in Chinese Democracy you'd see it is not a solo venture. I understand that it is important for haters (I am not saying you are a hater!) to try to make it appear like a solo record, because then it is easier to slam Axl, but fact is that it isn't. it's gotta sting that after 15 years of efforts, the general public still wants the real deal over what's considered "gnr" today.The nu band never won preference in the grand scheme of things.I think you'd be loony to ever believe that anything new would replace preference for the old. Guns N' Roses has a way too strong back catalogue and too many old fans, for that to ever happen. I hope Axl never really believed he would manage to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 it's really hard to have a career without selling out. Axl has pretty much done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted May 21, 2012 Author Share Posted May 21, 2012 If you look at the credit notes in Chinese Democracy you'd see it is not a solo venture. I understand that it is important for haters (I am not saying you are a hater!) to try to make it appear like a solo record, because then it is easier to slam Axl, but fact is that it isn't. Ozzy collaborated with people too, but the band was still under his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 If you look at the credit notes in Chinese Democracy you'd see it is not a solo venture. I understand that it is important for haters (I am not saying you are a hater!) to try to make it appear like a solo record, because then it is easier to slam Axl, but fact is that it isn't. Ozzy collaborated with people too, but the band was still under his name.If he didn't write the music himself then it wasn't a solo effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trqster Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) Axl still carries the Gn'R name for one damn good reason: $'s!! There might be others but this one must be the strongest one.Didn't he in his chats mentioned something like that if he didn't stand to the name he'd be probably broke, cause of all the lawsuits going on?It must be expensive to support his lifestyle, entourage/"family", lawyers, hired musicians, etc, etc... I doubt it. He doesn't seem to be motivated by money at all, just some vague artistic vision.Not saying that's not also a strong motive/reason, but the man himself said that there were serious financial issues that he had to go through at a certain period...Other than that do you reckon it'd be possible for him to sustain his current lifestyle along with all the expenses....just by doing some gigs under the name: Axl's band or whatever? Gn'R brand is still worth a lot of money...Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE Axl Rose fan and will always support him in whatever he decides to do, but personally Gn'R has been long dead, since Izzy & other important original members left. Truth is that truth hurts... Edited May 21, 2012 by trqster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Other than that do you reckon it'd be possible for him to sustain his current lifestyle along with all the expenses....just by doing some gigs under the name: Axl's band or whatever? Gn'R brand is still worth a lot of money...I don't know details surrounding his current lifestyle, so I'd be careful to guess . But I think he can live comfortably just from the royalties from his back catalogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzygirl Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Yes, it's obvious that it was too much and it's a bad idea that he is using GNR name. When a band becomes so big as Guns were in the 80s/90s, it's understandable that many people can't accept such a change. The original band was legendary and all or almost all the members were very charismatic; they were like the perfect band for a lot of people. The current band wouldn't be so criticized and refused if they were performing under a different name. It would be like a different project of Axl. The current members aren't bad musicians at all so I think it's even unfair for them; people will always compare them with the former ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 so if Axl changed the name to Axl N Roses nobody would complain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feconroses Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 so if Axl changed the name to Axl N Roses nobody would complain?No.If we are honest with ourselves, most of us are here for Axl Rose, not because "Guns N Roses". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted May 21, 2012 Author Share Posted May 21, 2012 If we are honest with ourselves, most of us are here for Axl Rose, not because "Guns N Roses".I completely agree. It is all about Axl at this point. Anybody else from the current lineup could quit tomorrow and I wouldn't give a shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts